Ezren

Eradarus's page

Organized Play Member. 77 posts (131 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

At 5th level his check is base 22... its kinda dumb

Ninja lets me add +4 then distance penalties.

Its just wrong how easy he can break LOS and vanish... but then again... NINJA.

I don't even have vanishing trick... cause that would be over the top busted.

Liberty's Edge

And the last 3rd of the first book was nothing but guys with darkvision...which means I didn't get concealment from low light... so I found my own concealment.

One more level till BLUR... TRY AND STOP ME FROM STEALTHING THEN WILL YOU!

Liberty's Edge

My character purchased sleeves of many outfits. Our DM agreed that one of the many outfits would be "A birthday suit"

So before he dropped as a free action, he used a move to draw down the sleeve and another to pull it back up and well... pull a bruce almighty

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This happened in the last session we played Shattered star, and I thought it was worthy of posting.

My character in that game is a Sylph Ninja 3 / Wizard(Teleportation school) 2

Aiming for Arcane trickster.

Now, my character has an obscene stealth check. Somewhere around 20 at 5th level... but despite that he has trouble using it as darkvision gives stealth the finger... -_-

So he conjures mist... in the form of a wand of obscuring mist or just casting the spell outright and using alter winds to gently move the cloud...

We come to a bridge near the Ladies light. And being the scout I instantly conjure a cloud and use it to gain concealment to sneak across.

I know I know... overt much? Big cloud of fog slowly making its way across the gap? I can just imagine the cartoon version of this.

Well my character makes it across and hears someone shout WHO GOES THERE. He doesn't respond, I'm just a strange unwarranted cloud of smoke after all.

Then I hear casting... spellcraft check says its a dispel magic...

My character says "CRAP" and drops to the ground.

The dispel magic goes off.. cloud goes poof and there is my Sylph, nude, in the Burt Reynolds Pose.

He says "Hey Baby, how you doin" to the half orc female... hilarity ensues...

Liberty's Edge

As far as sacrifice. You see it all the time. In rituals done by followers of all sorts of nasty gods.

Zon-Kuthon, Lamashtu... all of them have a thing for human sacrifice.

There has to be a reason why.

Liberty's Edge

Logic supports it. If Aroden died of a cold or put a .45 in his mouth people would have talked about it.

Its not know, therefor there is a reason why its not known.

Its a logical assumption, if a loose one.

Liberty's Edge

The reason he died had to be hid, otherwise Pharasma and more importantly NETHYS would have blabbed at some point. Which makes me think it involved Rovagug...

Now keep in mind that in this world... human sacrifice has power... lots of it.

Imagine if you sacrificed a GOD.

That's some serious juice... say, enough to make storms assault the coast of the inner sea for weeks on end...

Here's the thing. If this did involve Rovagug, say him getting out of his isolation... Asmodeus would be the logical recipient of this metric crapton of power... bad idea

Asmodeus is the gold standard of not to be trusted...ever...ever ever ever...

So Aroden would need some backup...someone to do two things.

1: Slit his throat...
2: Make sure Asmodeus doesn't keep it for himself... like the power hungry little jerk he is.

Who could he trust with this task? My money is on Torag...

If Torag did it... NO ONE could find out. At least none of the mortals who would blab it to EVERYONE...

It wouldn't go over well that one good god, a LG one at that, slit the throat of another for any reason...

So it had to be kept quiet... real quiet... like way better than government coverup quiet.

So of the gods... three would be issues.

Pharasma, given that Aroden would show up in the line eventually
Nethys, cause he has the annoying habit of being omniscient
And Groetus...cause hey...that guys a jerk...

Pharasma is smart enough to agree to keep her own trap shut...since blabbing would cause faith to evaporate quicker than a politicians nobility after winning an election...

Nethys would be an issue. One half of his wonder twins mental landscape would be mum... the other would like nothing more than to blab to everyone... probably with some annoying magic thingumy.

Groetus... well hes in self imposed exile... and he knows that cleaning up after Rovagug would be harder than cleaning up just about ANYTHING else...

So Asmodeus distracts or wards off Nethys, Torag slits Aroden's throat, Pharasma and Groetus keep quite and Rovagug doesn't get to imitate Kirstie Alley in a baskin robins...

And none of the inhabitants of Golarion are the wiser...

Liberty's Edge

Elorebaen wrote:
I don't have anything informative at this stage, but I do want to say that I respect the whole approach to this idea. Thanks.

I only have one problem with this.... WHY DOES THAT INSECT HAVE BREASTS?

Seriously...

Rules wise I kinda like that rewrite... but then again no rules system is perfect.

Liberty's Edge

I'm playing an elven fighter/transmuter/Eldritch Knight right now... I have to say you don't really lose a lot in the way of attack rolls... attack rolls.

At 20th level you are missing something of the level of 4-5 bab in wizard. That's it. And you MORE than make up for that with spells that give you bonuses to attack rolls.

Greater Magic Weapon
Heroism/Greater Heroism
Bulls Strength (Not useful at later levels... but when you first get it it is awesome)
Haste

There are many things that let you make up for the lost BaB. Not to mention you have SPELLS! Seriously good spells as EK loses only 2 levels of casting minimum. That is...well...simply put... 9th level spells with plenty of feats.

Scimitar + Improved Critical + spellstoring + Greater Magic Weapon + Arcane Strike + Power Attack (Iffy on this one) + EK10 Spell Critical = something is just plain up dead.

Liberty's Edge

0gre wrote:
or simply that the phrase "Words of Power" is a metaphore, not to be read literally (Which is the way the system is actually build).

Exactly... keep in mind NONE OF US SPEAK COMMON, ELVEN OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE IN PATHFINDER.

So naturally the words are meant to be given in game names.

Each player makes his own words, and uses them or doesn't at his option.

Liberty's Edge

Thanatos95 wrote:
Drejk wrote:
'Rixx wrote:
Yeah, or set fire to people with ice?

frostfire bolt!

Hmmm... Wait, this is d20... How it was caled? A, yes, rimfire bolt!

Sure you dont mean Rimefire bolt?

There are so many horribly twisted and WRONG things I can say about that last one... so many.

As for the question at hand...

Removing the level requirements from the words does sound oddly ok... but it would need EXTENSIVE testing to make sure it doesn't have too many loopholes. Some are ok... but it has a limit.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:
Eradarus wrote:

1: I disagree. The system progresses along the same lines as normal spells for the most part. xd4 -> xd6 max 10 -> max 15 -> max 20

Just like most spells. And ontop of that you can add other effect words to customize the effect, say a fireball that greases its area, or a lightning bolt that has a stun effect.

When you add the secondary effects that you can toss in... its on par with the other damage dealing spells. As a stunned enemy is just as dead as one you dealt 150 damage to... he just gets to die more horribly...

2: If you don't like it. Don't participate. Simple as that. Wait for a wider scope test. Once Paizo has the data it needs I'm sure a wider scope test will be included, along with the revision of magus so that we can test what our opinions and testing have shown needs to change.

Normal spells don't do very much damage at all, that's my point. They do less damage than an even lazily optimized archer and there are lots of foes who just laugh at whatever damage type you pick unless it's force or sonic (and there you're looking at even worse damage). And generally you won't be able to afford to add extra effects without tanking your damage or adding really trivially lame effects.

Right now, there is no Grease keyword. The closest practical equivalent is a Small Burst - Cramp - Fire Blast, which is a fourth-level spell. It's not even close to Acid Pit, Fear, or Confusion. It's not even as good as Firefall. It's about as good as Shout, which is terrible. And that's assuming that Grease is only a two-point word; I seriously doubt it'd be that cheap.

The "If you don't like it, don't comment" crew is tiring. "This playtest document is has overcomplicated rules and is functionally incomplete" is feedback. I'd daresay it's more useful feedback than like-it-or-lump-it.

But its not "Feedback" at all...as it is tainted by opinion. Paizo doesn't want opinions. They want unbiased data...which you're not giving them. And even if you were. You've already biased yourself against things. So whatever data you give has to be thrown out anyway.

I'm done here. Talking to a wall isn't constructive.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:
Eradarus wrote:
Bottom line. This isn't a "playtest" its a "Focused Playtest". YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD WHAT THE INTENTIONS FOR THE DOCUMENT ARE. And you are ignoring them. This is simply a damage dealing test. Nothing more. The designers want to see how the damage output works with the system.

Okay. The damage output is mediocre, and would rely entirely on sneaking a bunch of keywords onto the spells to stack up ancilliary bonuses like Elemental Focus, etc. It'll depend on what books you have access to, but the upshot is that under ideal circumstances you're about as good as a spellcaster throwing metamagicked Elemental Orbs from Spell Comp. I could do the math, but I am lazy and I'd be willing to bet that if I did the math I'd be right.

Quote:

This is why you only have a fraction of it. This is why alot of it doesn't seem to be useful outside damage. BECAUSE THATS THE INTENT.

We will get the entire thing at a later date. Then you can complain. Until then there's nothing to complain about.

For its intent the words of power seem to scale decently for a BETA (This word means NOT FINAL RESULT btw... you seem to think this is the do all end all version...which is simply wrong) release. The final system will take some tweaks and some simplification of rules. But from the start I knew it was something worth looking at.

And you make an awful lot of absolute assertions about the system for not having but what amounts to a fraction of it.

I'm aware of the intent, but this INTENDED LIMITED BETA is useless. It's a playtest fighter with no feats but Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in the playtest document. Sorcerers and wizards are the worst class in the game for dealing neat little damage packets, not just because they have so many other effects to choose from but also because they do less damage with more limitations compared to other classes.

Where the rubber meets the road is how this system interacts with effects which aren't neat little damage packets. You can really...

1: I disagree. The system progresses along the same lines as normal spells for the most part. xd4 -> xd6 max 10 -> max 15 -> max 20

Just like most spells. And ontop of that you can add other effect words to customize the effect, say a fireball that greases its area, or a lightning bolt that has a stun effect.

When you add the secondary effects that you can toss in... its on par with the other damage dealing spells. As a stunned enemy is just as dead as one you dealt 150 damage to... he just gets to die more horribly...

2: If you don't like it. Don't participate. Simple as that. Wait for a wider scope test. Once Paizo has the data it needs I'm sure a wider scope test will be included, along with the revision of magus so that we can test what our opinions and testing have shown needs to change.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:
Machaeus wrote:

I'll agree with you here, actually. But if you're finding it takes too much time, simply make note cards and shuffle them around to get the spell you want. Simple enough, right?

Quote:
The main, crippling issue is the fact that cobbling together spells on the fly is just unworkable.
I dunno. World of Darkness does it fairly well...but that's a lot more fast and loose. Maybe it is unworkable for d20...

You're agreeing with my intro before reading the supporting paragraphs. Yes, you can premake spells and put them on index cards, but that's only if you're a prepared caster or else you're giving up half of the advantage of being a spontaneous wordcaster. Also, if you're writing premade spells on index cards, how is this system more interesting than a system where you choose premade spells from a list?

And the WOD system (Mage spells) is completely based on GM fiat, and not significantly better than playing mother-may-I. (Not interested in arguing about this further unless someone makes it relevant to this playtest doc, though.)

Quote:
The Word Costs don't increase unless you're cobbling multiple effects together, most of the time. There are a scant few exceptions. Plus, table 1-1 (page 4), though I can understand the irritation of constantly looking it up. It's a mess, yes, but not a huge one. But that's why it's a playtest and not the final product.

It is irritating to constantly look up an irregularly-increasing amount of points per spell level. That is a mess; it's one of many poorly-designed parts.

Quote:
That's a flaw? If so it's not even the size of an atom. Isn't a lot of 3rd-party stuff - and even 1st-party stuff - broken? Isn't that what everyone complains about? Make up your mind.
That Pathfinder is backwards compatible is a selling point right on the cover. You don't get to claim compatibility with "decades of game material" as Buhlmann and Jacobs have claimed in this very forum if you break compatibility. Not working with...

Wow that's a lot of complaining... seriously.

Bottom line. This isn't a "playtest" its a "Focused Playtest". YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD WHAT THE INTENTIONS FOR THE DOCUMENT ARE. And you are ignoring them. This is simply a damage dealing test. Nothing more. The designers want to see how the damage output works with the system.

This is why you only have a fraction of it. This is why alot of it doesn't seem to be useful outside damage. BECAUSE THATS THE INTENT.

We will get the entire thing at a later date. Then you can complain. Until then there's nothing to complain about.

For its intent the words of power seem to scale decently for a BETA (This word means NOT FINAL RESULT btw... you seem to think this is the do all end all version...which is simply wrong) release. The final system will take some tweaks and some simplification of rules. But from the start I knew it was something worth looking at.

And you make an awful lot of absolute assertions about the system for not having but what amounts to a fraction of it.

And people who speak in absolutes are wrong 90% of the time. As such I personally will be ignoring all of your opinions until they show something more than knee jerk assumptions and fridge logic.

Sorry friend. Calm down, have a mocha, and think about the intent of the document. Your thoughts should shift when you look at the scope right.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Drack530 wrote:

I agree. So far the playtest has been half complaining and half constructive feedback.

Its to be expected though when ever anything new comes out, but people could be a lot nicer about their posts thats for sure.

Thats the way it always seems. One of the things I have learned from this process is that the folks with a beef about something seem far more numerous and loud than those who think its pretty cool or are enthusiastic about it. This does not even take into account the folks who think they can do everything better than us and are on a mission to prove it. Funny enough, I draw constructive feedback and ideas out of all of these groups.. some are just driving me mad a little faster than others.

Jason

That's simply human nature. People only say things when something is wrong. Otherwise they just go about things without making waves.

The trick is ignoring the naysayers and weeding out the actual data from the hearsay and conjecture.

Liberty's Edge

On the topic of true names. I do like the concept of certain creatures having a true name. But nothing that is natural (IE animals) and nothing that has free will (IE humanoids) should have a true name. And if they do it should be a fluid thing as sentient creatures with free will have the annoying tendency to constantly redefine who they are, thus changing their true name.

Now outsiders, which are entirely bound to their alignment (And alignment is the representation of free will in my opinion) have static true names, they are who they are and will always be that way.

True names are more useful in terms of controlling the more static things in the world, like the elements and such.

Mechanics wise a true name would be a sort of complete spell tucked away within the words of power, a preset spell that has a singular effect and cannot be augmented, but something that is only usable by someone who knows words of power. Sort of like a WoP wizard/sorc only spell much like mage's lucubration is wizard only.

When you think about it power word stun/kill/blind are all true names. The true names of prevailing concepts in the world. Stun being the true name of time, blind being the true name of darkness, and kill being the true name of death.

Liberty's Edge

MaverickWolf wrote:
I'm kind of thrown off by the lack of any healing effects. Those can create a whole different problem than offensive tactics, and a system designed for all casters with a playtest just for full arcane casters seems like it's going to miss a lot of potential balance problems.

As Jason said. Focused playtest. These are wizard words... and even then only a sample of them. They're wanting to get a baseline on how their system works.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:

The first thing I thought of when reading this is how it could apply really well to the Magus class, as the big complaint was lack of touch spells to use.

This could effectively give you a ton of damage touch spells to use, as well as a bunch of personal buff spells, all with as much specificity as you could want for flavor purposes.

I like it, but what do people think of the balance of of it with this class, as well as with the Eldrich Knight?

There is a lot of potential here. But we have to know what level certain spells are for a magus first before we can do anything. Keep in mind the release is for wizard/sorc who have 9 levels of spells. Magus will have a smaller selection of these spells to work with, limiting their flexibility to where they are balanced with the more versatile wizards and sorcs.

Liberty's Edge

Kolokotroni wrote:
so are we going to start a collection to get the paizo staff new snow tires?

A VPN tunnel for each of their houses would be better... then they can work in their pajamas.

Liberty's Edge

Mistah J wrote:
ugly child wrote:
Many thanks for the update. I'm very much looking forward to seeing, what looks to be, an innovative magic system.

Hear Hear!

I think this is the most excited I have been about a Paizo playtest. (and I have been pretty darn excited about them all, let me tell you!)

Indeed. A non vancian system I can actually get into. Not that I don't love the psionic power points system.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Also, fighters should have to roll Craft (Weaponsmithing) checks to keep their swords sharp and rust-free. :P

Not true with magic weapons. They are preternaturally sharp by virtue of the enchantment bonus enchantment and require little upkeep.

Going after a wizard's spellbook is fair play. But keep in mind that you need to not turn him into a commoner with a pointy hat and lots o read magics.

If you're going to go after a spellbook... make sure the party trounces a wizard he can steal at least a partial book from. This makes him pay for not having HIS book. But doesn't totally screw him. As that will take the FUN from his gameplay, which is something the DM isn't allowed to do.

Liberty's Edge

Shifty wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

I would like to make a plea for 'styles' or 'types' not 'schools'.

It would probably be neater if Ultimate Combat had lots of combat styles but had zero real-world combat styles as they come with so much cultural baggage and create too many opportunities for "you're doing it wrong" conflict.

This +1000.

There's just too many armchair experts that will take it 100% seriously and get all up in arms. The amount of Bullshido we would then be exposed to would be maxtreme, and would far eclipse the volume of the actual source material.

You could take the real world 'art/style' and rebadge it.

Similarly, different racial types might also have their own indigenous arts that suit their staure, demeanor, and environment.

Dwarf-Kan-Do might be some sort of grappling system for use in enclosed areas like tunnels, and consist of short 'close in' moves - practised in the 'Bull-Ring' - an Octagonal cage in the warrior halls..

Elfinjitsu might rely on acrobatics and striking from concelament out of the forest dressed in a pair of black pyjamas.

I think this idea is good. But base things around normal martial arts to give them some grounding. Say the PF version of Suiken(Drunken boxing) is a dwarven art with a dwarven name...stuff like that.

And who wouldn't be scared of a dwarven monk who is drunk as a skunk.

Liberty's Edge

Ball bearings. Or buckshot... both are really good at stopping cheaters. Especially if you're good enough to smack them right on the forehead...

^_^

Liberty's Edge

w0nkothesane wrote:

Just for clarification: though I think there's a case to be made for Fighter 4/Transmuter 4/Arcane Archer 2, I think that for this level, Fighter 5/Transmuter 2/Arcane Archer 3 will be better.

Witch could be interesting, but the wizard has a much better spell list for this purpose, and the hexes will have such low DCs (due to the low Witch level) that they won't be worth using, and other than that there's no real reason to go Witch.

** spoiler omitted **

You're right. You'll come just short with 6 ranger.

But I think ranger just rings better for an elf. Elven rangers are basically their primary physical class.

Ranger just makes more sense and I think is a better pick due to skill selection (IE STEALTH, which NO fighter has as a class skill) and perception bonuses with favored terrain. Not to mention improved precise, which a fighter SIMPLY CANT GET at that level. Then there is hunters bond, two favored enemies, favored terrain. No brainer I think.

Fighter is nice... but in the given situation its just too much minmaxing on the part of the DM. Sure he may hit a little harder... but who cares... he's still one hell of an odd duck to be throwing at a party. In the end they'll be like "Wait...he was a what?"

Where if he's a ranger they won't give it a second thought.

Liberty's Edge

w0nkothesane wrote:
Eradarus wrote:
Depends on how many AA levels...if you can get 3rd level spells... well... evoker. Simply cause you get MORE FIREBALLS to tack to your arrows and shoot from a mile and a half away. AA arrow damage + fireball... good lord.

If you go for 3rd level spells, skip fireball. It's classic, yes, but at 10th level, with the low caster level you're going to have, plus the low save DC that your MAD dictates, most likely you're going to be adding 5d6, and most enemies will make the save, for an average of 17.5 damage extra IF none of the party has Evasion. You'd likely be going Fighter 4/Wizard 4/Arcane Archer 2, which gives you caster level 5.

If you go with my build above, you'd have DC 16 saves for Fireball. Even a character with a poor reflex save and a mediocre dexterity is going to have a pretty good chance of saving for half, and good reflex classes? Forget about it.

Instead, go for Haste if they get 3rd level spells. Haste on the Arcane Archer alone will out-damage that piss poor fireball, and his buddies would get it too. I'm not going to do the math here, but it's been shown plenty of times all over the forums: Haste out damages Fireball every single time.

At 10th level... 3 arrows tagged with 5d6 fireballs are nothing to laugh at. Remember... this is AGAINST the party. Not against the monsters.

And with ranger you get other radius spells that can be used with imbue arrow. IE entangle. Start combat with an out of the blue entangle. Move to a web, then follow up with a 5d6+2d4 fireball...all the while using Hunter's bond to give the other attackers your favored enemy bonuses. And improved precise shot lets you pick on the easy to take down party members. Normally a tank will just stand between you and the wizard or sorc... with improved precise, thanks to 6 levels in ranger, you can just plug the caster constantly, burning anything near or just outright slaughtering him with rapid shot and perhaps manyshot.

Sure fighter is better for a single attacker... but as OP stated. This is an assault team. And ranger just flat plays well with others.

Liberty's Edge

He's from Kyonin... he's a douchebag by nature of his land of birth.

There isn't a single elf in that place that isn't a 5 alarm asshat.

By the end of Second Darkness my party was contemplating just moving and letting the damn drow get away with it... just to get rid of those douchebag elves -_-

Liberty's Edge

CASEY BENNETT wrote:
Eradarus wrote:

Elves... Int bonus. Wizard is their natural arcane casting class.

Ranger 6 / Wizard(Evoker) 1 / AA is the flat out best option...

Improved Precise shot = win.

And with that many levels of ranger you get hunter's bond... select "Party" and he can give his bonuses to other strike team members.

And you'll have ranger spells... and let me tell you. Entangle messes up parties... especially when delivered on an arrow that plunks their caster in the chest before they even roll for initiative.

Ranger wizard done.

I agree on all counts excepting Evoker. Really, pick a better specialization. Transmutation spells are better for a martial character, Conjurations are generally best in class and you could give him the Teleport-stepping ability which is very good.

Actually, strike that! Ranger is probably on par with Fighter, considering you can't just skip Point-Blank Shot because it is a prereq. That is the real advantage of a Ranger archer over the Fighter. Yes, you may not get Imp. Precise Shot at L6, but is that really going to matter in this instance?

You are probably better off going with Fighter, wearing heavier armor and outfitting him with a couple lesser rods of Still Spell, if you are going for optimized.

Though, knowing what level this NPC will be might help us give truly optimal advice. Right now it is somewhat conjectural.

Depends on how many AA levels...if you can get 3rd level spells... well... evoker. Simply cause you get MORE FIREBALLS to tack to your arrows and shoot from a mile and a half away. AA arrow damage + fireball... good lord.

Liberty's Edge

Elves... Int bonus. Wizard is their natural arcane casting class.

Ranger 6 / Wizard(Evoker) 1 / AA is the flat out best option...

Improved Precise shot = win.

And with that many levels of ranger you get hunter's bond... select "Party" and he can give his bonuses to other strike team members.

And you'll have ranger spells... and let me tell you. Entangle messes up parties... especially when delivered on an arrow that plunks their caster in the chest before they even roll for initiative.

Ranger wizard done.

Liberty's Edge

Bazzdar wrote:

ok he took ranger instead of fighter but he used a ranger template from the APG which let him give up some stuff for the ability to make any single target his hunter focus 3/day. This gives him a +4 to hit that target. He definately has manyshot and rapid shot. He gets hasted and bull str which brings him to a 20 str which is the str of the composite long bow (but he says the buffs are not what make him kick ass). he uses gravity bow a lot. His weapon is +3 Icy burst and he adds flaming to that via his AA class. He crits on 19-20.

He also has boots of levitation and uses a wizard teleport 5ft + 5ft step trick to move out of full attack range and still get his full attacks. I should mention there is also a 2h PA barb and a duel wield dps fighter wich do significant damage. They seem fine because they have to engage the enemies befor they start dealing damage. The main annoyance with the archer is he gets his full attacks every single round at hundereds of feet away. He can shoot through cover with feats and abilities. He can shoot flying enemies. He can basically kill everyone in the world. On top of that he tells me he has even another trick that he hasn't shown yet.

He killed my fire giant in the first round. He almost killed (forced retreat) my adult black dragon in one round. He killed a lvl 9 paly in one round (evil campaign). What should I do to balance this out. The big bosses get one round (hopefully) to do somthing before they splat. I could negate him completely (wind walls, paralyze, etc.) but that would get old (sucks to do nothing all fight).

tnx

One word.... Wall of force... ok three words. Or better yet. If he wants to use non core books... use the Chelliax book on him

Little 4th level spell called Emergency Force Barrier.

Get a wizard with that spell... and watch all of his attacks fail utterly. If the wizard can cast it three or four times he can absolutely shut the AA down while letting loose with fireballs and better yet...a blindness/deafness or two.

If you want to mess him up core... go with mirror image...and use it alot. Or just drop Vrocks on them (Yes...even in an evil campaign Vrocks are about as chaotic and violent as they get...and get Mirror Image AT WILL.

Or better yet... invisibility or greater invisibility. A munchkin is not likely to prepare anything but damage... so a single greater invis will leave him sputtering at what to shoot at.

Mirror image is hell on arcane archers... even with lots of attacks.

Windwall does well against them too. Ring of feather falling + boots of levitation = wizard who can jump and shoot over his arcane archer screwing wall of wind...

Liberty's Edge

KnightErrantJR wrote:

Well, he did also say that some spells just can't be "built" using the Words of Power system, so I guess we'll see its limitations as well.

This is one of those things that sounds really awesome, but I'm concerned that in play its going to be a nightmare due to the time sink involved. Not only could it take a while for someone to build their prepared spells, but I'm really wondering how quickly a sorcerer or oracle could build spells on the fly.

I guess we'll see how quickly it can be put together . . . soon . . . ish?

Depends entirely on how many words exist and how they are combined.

One can assume that you will have basic words for the following things.

Fire
Ice
Lightning
Acid
ect ect

Then words that modify such as

Ray
Burst
Orb
Bolt

Then words that define duration and such. Allowing you to build a spell based on the components of a spell description.

If you have a ton of words known... you'll have a hard time building spells. But if you have relatively few involved in each spell it will still be decently easy fill your slots.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Jason,

I would love to participate in the upcoming playtests, but without concrete developer objectives, I just can't stomach the atmosphere on the forums. It needn't be detailed or elaborate, just something that will keep people from intellectually masturbating for want of a yea/nay decision on key points of the design.

I've put a lot of thought into how the playtest might be improved to the point where I would want to actively participate, and clear design objectives seem like the number one change that could be made.

Please feel free to update the objectives as the playtest progresses, I think that could be really helpful. But please, don't make it another free-for-all. Everyone competes for the biggest megaphone under those circumstances, and it is really quite difficult to endure.

Thanks!

I understand your concern Evil Lincoln (BTW, great forum name, did you escape from a holodeck along with Ghengis Khan?).

The Magus playtest got away from us a bit, due to some lack of time on my part to properly monitor it. That will not happen this time. Its funny, I understand why you would want developer objectives, but I have found in the past that if I interject too much, I get colored results (as it is if any staff member interjects heavily, things sway to their opinion). I will be looking to find a middle ground on this one I think, giving out more guidelines from the start, but keeping about the same level of posting once things get going. If folks cannot follow rules, that is why we have a reporting feature, which we used quite regularly.

Interestingly enough, the people with the "biggest megaphone" do not get any extra weight from me. I am just not susceptible to that sort of attempt at coercion. Now, I might respond to them in an attempt to get them to calm down a bit, but that does not mean they have any greater effect on the playtest. I use the playtest to get feedback on certain features and to look for good ideas. I have implemented just as many from folks...

Forget the name... how on earth did you find an avatar that fits? The only one I can think of is a screenshot from Electric six's "Gay Bar" (Its a song... and a seriously catchy song)

It is good to hear that things are taken by something other than face value. As with all human interactions, 90% will be totally and utterly worthless tripe... its important to pick out the gems of pure conscious thought.

Liberty's Edge

In the end it doesn't matter what you lose for Eldritch Knight. So long as you like what you get in return. The same is true for ANY PRC.

I am currently playing an Elven Eldritch Knight... and personally. I find it rather enjoyable. Sure he doesn't hit as hard as the fighter (Actually... he hits harder... which is kinda scary). And I don't cast as well as the parties full wizard... but heck... the character is FUN to play.

That's what the game is about anyway. Fun. Who cares if you're not the most effective guy on the team...if you're smiling the entire time you're at the table who cares.

Munchkins are a lower life form...and should be dealt with as such.

Liberty's Edge

After listening to a podcast in which Words of power was discussed... I am most interested.

Finally a non-vancian system that doesn't revolve around long division based gameplay...

Although if I see someone use Harry Potter spells in game...I'm going to leap across the table and make their legs bend the wrong way.

One can infer how the system will work... the catch is how to make it balanced and entertaining without adding a hefty weight of rules to the DM's back...

Liberty's Edge

Synapse wrote:

I question mostly the actual usefulness of your ideas.

Eradarus wrote:


Arcane Strike: You gain the Arcane Strike feat. In Addition you may activate this feat as an immediate action instead of a swift action.

Immediate action's only advantage over swift action is using it outside your turn... which for a bonus damage to your weapons is pretty much only used if you get an AoO. Thus there's little real gain in that.

Eradarus wrote:

Spellslash: Whenever you deliver a spell with spellstrike and deal damage to the enemy (IE you penetrate their DR and successfully deal HP damage with the weapon's damage alone) that enemies spell resistance is reduced by 5 for the spell delivered with the spellstrike.

This is the good stuff. It'll probably be easier to understand "You get a X bonus to your caster level check to overcome spell resistance when you hit with a melee weapon in the same round".

Eradarus wrote:

Also. Whenever a Magus makes a spellstrike...the weapon should be considered magic for that round. There's a spell going though the weapon after all.

Considering the weapons can be bonded (and expectedly magical) from level 4 onwards, this only benefits characters of levels 1-4 fighting against dr/magic enemies (is there such enemy for that cr?) and the occasional "oops no you don't get your shiny weapon for this one" situations. That said, it'll see more use in the table than immediate arcane strike.

Eradarus wrote:
I'd even be ok with the weapon being considered to have an enhancement bonus equal to the level of the spell delivered for the purposes of penetrating DR. So if you smack someone with a 5th level spell with spellstrike... your weapon acts as a +5 (IE Adamantine) for the purposes of penetrating metallic DR.
This is a continuation of the previous one. You'll usually only be +1 ahead of the actual bond on the weapon...which is not going to be useful if the weapon bonded was magical to start with.

Correct on all counts. Bit tired from work here.

The idea with arcane strike was to actually give you a chance to use it in between all the other snazzy tricks a Magus has. So how about this.

Arcane Strike: You gain the Arcane Strike feat. In addition you may sacrifice a spell as a swift action to active this feat for 1 minute per level of spell sacrificed.

That way you throw a spell at it (Which is generally how the Arcane Strike feat works, just on a larger scale) and the feat turns on for a set period, allowing you to wail away for eventually a very long time, and still get the benefit of the feat.

Liberty's Edge

Looking at Magus, and then back to its spiritual predecessor, the Warmage, I see several things that could be done.

Firstly...

Arcane Strike: You gain the Arcane Strike feat. In Addition you may activate this feat as an immediate action instead of a swift action.

Secondly comes the feel of the class. I've always seen hybrids like this as casters that use melee to augment their spells. Given that... I have always thought something. When you deliver a spell with a melee attack... and the attack is successful... shouldn't your opponent's ability to resist the spell be reduced? After all the spell is going off INSIDE them as opposed to having to go though their hide, which is where a lot of magical nasties gain their resistance to spells.

And one of the major issues with the Magus class is there is no incentive to use spell strike. So I came up with this.

Spellslash: Whenever you deliver a spell with spellstrike and deal damage to the enemy (IE you penetrate their DR and successfully deal HP damage with the weapon's damage alone) that enemies spell resistance is reduced by 5 for the spell delivered with the spellstrike.

This means that spell strike has a purpose... it gives the player a means to penetrate spell resistance.

Also. Whenever a Magus makes a spellstrike...the weapon should be considered magic for that round. There's a spell going though the weapon after all.

I'd even be ok with the weapon being considered to have an enhancement bonus equal to the level of the spell delivered for the purposes of penetrating DR. So if you smack someone with a 5th level spell with spellstrike... your weapon acts as a +5 (IE Adamantine) for the purposes of penetrating metallic DR.

Liberty's Edge

sysane wrote:
Now that begs the question of why would a chemist be any good at picking locks?

You obviously have never worked with fine chemistry tools before. A lot of that stuff takes a descent amount of manual dexterity.

Picking a lock is definitely easier than working with pipettes...

Manual dexterity and intelligence are all you need to pick a lock... yes you can do it faster with training and practice... but that's what RANKS in it are for... who says our friendly alchemist is a shutin that has never had to raid a wine cellar for "Materials" ^_^

Liberty's Edge

Razz wrote:

While I don't have the time to playtest the new classes, I like what I see at first glance of the Alchemist and Inquisitor.

My only problem is the names.

Alchemist is fine, but I'm not liking the name "Inquisitor". I am sure many here would agree to the class name being changed to "Avenger" to be more in line with what it represents and it invokes more of the meaning and role behind the class with such a title.

As for Tactical Feats, maybe "Teamwork Feats" or "Unity Feats" would be a better term. D&D has Tactical feats already, despite being from a non-OGL source. It'll be awkwardly confusing.

I really don't like "Avenger"... simply because it implies "Vengeance"

The class isn't there for that. Inquisitor IDs the class as a type of person who roots out evil(Or good) wherever it may be... regardless of the methods used. Anything goes if you get the job done. And that really does fit what the class does.

Liberty's Edge

Ellington wrote:

The following changes are what I'd like to see:

1) Remove the destruction judgment and have the damage bonus apply to every judgment. The inquisitor has worse armor and attack than the Paladin and needs to be able to do some extra damage. With this change he gains more freedom when choosing his judgments.

2) Have judgment be usable 3 times a day + Wisdom modifier or at will. Currently the inquisitor can use his judgment ability as often as a Paladin can use his Smite Evil attack. Although situational, the Paladin's Smite Evil has a lot more power and does not need any charging up.

3) Change his Bane ability so that he chooses the enemy type at the start of the day and it remains active until the end of the day. The Inquisitor's style is all about gathering knowledge about his foes and I think this fits his style more than something he just activates in combat to get a really good damage boost.

4) Replace his tactical feats with something else, possibly something in the vein of Monster Lore.

5) I'm not quite decided yet, but I don't think the Inquisitor needs Medium Armor proficiency.

What are your thought? What changes would you make?

I think part of what people say about it "Not having anything to tie the abilities together" is more from lack of knowledge of history than anything.

Inquisitors (And NO I do not mean the spanish inquisition... even though no one expects them) were often secretive sects in a religious organization. Much like exorcists and other "Dark and gloomy" types.

An inquisitor was tasked with a mission, and he would do so from the shadows so that local governments and, more importantly, the populace at large, were left unaware.

The skillset for this class is ok. I do agree with dropping the tactical feats... not needed. Give them extra feats like a fighter as they are SLAYERS OF EVIL and doing so with feats just makes sense.

Keep the spells. They are in the right here, at least from the perspective of their deity...and as such should have access to that diety's power.

More judgements... One that increases size category maybe? And feats that work with judgements would also be nice.

Paladin = Cleric Fighter combo
Inquisitor = Cleric ROGUE combo.

That should be the basis on how this class is built.

A sneaky cleric...

Liberty's Edge

Piety Godfury wrote:

On a more whimsical note;

One argument against Wisdom as the Witches primary stat is that Wisdom is often thought of as the ‘common sense’ stat. In some societies merely being a Witch would get you killed. It could be argued that it is unwise to pursue it as a profession in said societies. Though, it can also be said, that witches still pursue witchcraft in these societies. Bad life choices denote low Wisdom.

That doesn't really work. Generally people never see what they ARE as being overtly evil. Even the bad guys think their either doing what is right or what is needed. Very few (And those are the ones you should be afraid of) are actually aware that what they are doing is evil and are ok with that.

That being said yes, some witches would stop being witches cause they see it as a bad move. This means that the ones a party would run into are for all intents and purposes, on the far side of that life choice moment and as such in a place where they see what they are doing as morally ok, or even morally in the right. That takes the whole "Common sense" idea out of the equation entirely.

Witches would never see their craft as a bad common sense move. Now they WOULD see using it in PUBLIC as a bad idea. This only makes them secretive about their talents and skills. It doesn't drive them from them entirely.

Liberty's Edge

Kevin Mack wrote:
Only problem is Wis is generally used for divine spellcasting whilst a Witch is Arcane.

Correction: Wisdom is used for casters who use worldly experience as their source of power or who call upon outside forces (Gods mind you. But the familiar allows them to commune with such forces) to request spells.

A wisdom based arcane caster isn't about what KIND of spells they cast. Its about WHERE the power comes from.

I agree 100%. This JUST.MAKES.SENSE

Give the witch some wisdom based skills, switch casting to wisdom. Done.

It adds to the flavor as well as the witch is a very worldly character when you think about it. They're not getting their spells though study like a wizard (The FAMILIAR does the study, the witch is communing with the familiar as a sort of middleman) and they don't have the same skillset either. They're not blasters, more like debuffers.

Liberty's Edge

Piety Godfury wrote:
Eradarus wrote:
Piety Godfury wrote:
Eradarus wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:

Well then kick the player. If someone wants to do something that holds up the game and makes any encounter super easy... drop a rock on their head.

"You now have Cronns Disease"
"What is that?"
"You have the runs... permanently"

Its the DMs job to rein in metagamers and munchkins. NOT THE PUBLISHERS!

When are people going to realize this?

Which is fine, if your playing in a home game. This doesn't work in Organized Play environments (IE: Pathfinder Society). So it needs to be balanced out of the gate.

Besides, there is no reason balanced classes aren’t something to strive for. If the Paizo (the publisher) wasn't concerned about balance, I'm sure they wouldn't bother with an open play test.

You can't force balance though. There will always be rules that can be twisted or distorted to gain an advantage. Just part of the game. The goal is to get "close" to balance. Close enough to have 90% of the gameplay be balanced and fun. Any past that and you're turning the class from a fun concept that you can change and manipulate into a set in stone block of rules that are only in place to keep the minority (Read munchkins, who I don't game with anyway. You munchkin you end up dead. That's the rule) from doing things that unbalance the game.

To that point I don't see a need to change very much about this class. Its really close to the comfort zone in my opinion. Yes some things can be exploited... but the same is true for any other class.

A game without loopholes and points of exploit isn't a game... its a chore.

I agree: get it as close as possible. If you try to homogenize it too much you sacrifice too much and you end up with something different. I, for one, don't like the results.

Agreed. Personally I have no problem with the summon SLA. I see no reason to change it very much. The evolutions need work... but not much.

Now a feat could be put in place to allow the summoner to heal his Eidolon... that would be interesting. But it belongs as a feat, not a built in rule.

I am hoping that Paizo includes at least a few feats for each of these classes, as they do need some backup in that area to make them truly viable in mainstream play.

Liberty's Edge

Piety Godfury wrote:
Eradarus wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:

Well then kick the player. If someone wants to do something that holds up the game and makes any encounter super easy... drop a rock on their head.

"You now have Cronns Disease"
"What is that?"
"You have the runs... permanently"

Its the DMs job to rein in metagamers and munchkins. NOT THE PUBLISHERS!

When are people going to realize this?

Which is fine, if your playing in a home game. This doesn't work in Organized Play environments (IE: Pathfinder Society). So it needs to be balanced out of the gate.

Besides, there is no reason balanced classes aren’t something to strive for. If the Paizo (the publisher) wasn't concerned about balance, I'm sure they wouldn't bother with an open play test.

You can't force balance though. There will always be rules that can be twisted or distorted to gain an advantage. Just part of the game. The goal is to get "close" to balance. Close enough to have 90% of the gameplay be balanced and fun. Any past that and you're turning the class from a fun concept that you can change and manipulate into a set in stone block of rules that are only in place to keep the minority (Read munchkins, who I don't game with anyway. You munchkin you end up dead. That's the rule) from doing things that unbalance the game.

To that point I don't see a need to change very much about this class. Its really close to the comfort zone in my opinion. Yes some things can be exploited... but the same is true for any other class.

A game without loopholes and points of exploit isn't a game... its a chore.

Liberty's Edge

John Falter wrote:

I have an issue with how vague the class description is about the summoner's acquisition of an Eidolon. Now, I'm asking you: how did your summoner manage to get a being beyond their own power into doing their bidding?

Thus far, my concept's have usually been along the lines of an arcanist who made a deal with a powerful outsider, like a devil, to bind an Eidolon to them.

Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked my summoner's pet from the real world... it landed in Golarion...

^_^

I am working a celestial angle on one, with an outsider that is from the upper planes.

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:

I'm not sure.

I was trying to address the "Summoners are too powerful/time consuming when they nova" issue.

If the number of summons is reduced while increasing the longevity of the primary class ability, I would think the amount of strength would remain the same overall.

Well then kick the player. If someone wants to do something that holds up the game and makes any encounter super easy... drop a rock on their head.

"You now have Cronns Disease"
"What is that?"
"You have the runs... permanently"

Its the DMs job to rein in metagamers and munchkins. NOT THE PUBLISHERS!

When are people going to realize this?

Liberty's Edge

I like how the eidolon can evolve as a campaign progresses. That allows the player to really hone in on what his party needs.

And the spell list has absolutely no offense on it. Which is a nice twist

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
There is also the fact paizo has said a few times BAB/HD are linked. It is a rule if not they would not have bumped so many classes HD up to match BAB, but they did. They also do it with PRC and it is an official rule in conversions. So yeah it is a rule.

The first rule of DnD: "There are no rules that require blind adherence"

Any rule can be broken in the name of balance. In this case, that rings true. Give it up. You're being a rules lawyer. Any rule can be broken if it is done for the right reason. And this is the right reason. Soulknife does not fit squarely into any one spot, so you run the average and put it in the middle...where it will be comfortable. It doesn't break anything. If anything it will under power the class so there is a buffer in this.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Show me a class in the PRD that brakes HD/BAB other then a d12 class, show me where in the core rules it shows how to convert of build a new class, oh wait that's what the conversion guide is for . As this is a conversion yes it should fallow such guidelines even a new class should fallow official guidelines. The core rules do not tell you how to convert a class or give guidelines that is what the official conversion document is for.

Sorry but when the official guidelines and core rules do not work for proof your back to" well because" which is a poor reason. And it's not fully compliant it's a "well we used the rules we agreed with"

Um... just because the PRD doesn't... doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen. That just goes to show that the sample size is sufficiently small that such a case does not exist within said sample size.

It only means that none of the players handbook classes are worthy of bypassing said rule...not that the rule CAN'T or even SHOULDN'T be broken.

Liberty's Edge

Frerezar wrote:

Well to elaborate my previous post. d6 damage to a number of targets that only have t be 10ft apart from ech other. It can be any kind of energy depending on whatever fits your whim. One of the types allows fort instead of ref. a wilder can deal 40 damage to 5 targets with no chance for evasion. And that is without feat investment not items.

My policy was that if it can outblast a warmage then something´s wrong.

That's getting fixed... DSP says that you can only have one energy type unless you're a kine... and they have every right to do that kind of thing.

Liberty's Edge

Blazej wrote:
Eradarus wrote:

I find it odd that we don't get good ole squiddy but we get his retarded redneck cousin the Neothelid -_-

Mind Flayers were one of the iconic dnd monsters. And their loss in Paizo is going to be something that effects the way I play.

The dark recesses of the world are NOT NEARLY as scary now.

1. How dare you insult the Neothelid!

2. Bow before the Neothelid!

3. The Neothelid shall teach you true fear.

That is all.

I killed one yesterday... with a bow... from 100 feet away... No lie.

Book 6 of the Second Darkness AP is turning out fun.

If you look at the Lords of Madness book... Neothelids are literally the retarded cousins of Illithids... seriously.

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>